Court rejects Christian Science motion on bequests

STANFORD -- The fate of two estates valued at about $98 million is still
undecided after a Los Angeles court refused to grant a motion by the
Christian Science Church that would have given the inheritance to the church.

The ruling keeps alive the possibility that Stanford, as one of two
contingent beneficiaries, eventually will share in the estates.

At issue are bequests by sisters Eloise Mabury Knapp and Bella Mabury that
grant large legacies to the church if it meets certain conditions, including
publishing as "authorized literature" a controversial book, The Destiny of
the Mother Church.

Written by Knapp's husband, Bliss, in the early 1940s, the book is
disavowed by many church members because it essentially deifies church
founder Mary Baker Eddy.

In their wills, the women also instructed the church to maintain the book
for sale and prominently display it in "substantially all" Christian Science
reading rooms virtually forever. Bliss Knapp died in 1958, leaving his wife
and sister-in-law to press the case for his book.

During a courtroom discussion with church attorneys, the judge expressed
pessimism that the church could ever fulfill the conditions and, thus,
receive the money.

"I don't think you'll ever be in a position to get it," Ross said from the
bench. "I think you've got terms in that trust that will never be satisfied."

Under terms of the wills, Stanford and Museum Associates, a support group
for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, would split the bequests if the
church fails to meet various requirements by the expiration dates. Knapp's
trus t expires in May 1993 and Mabury's will expire 21 years after the death
of a named individual who is trustee for one of the estates. Mabury, who
attended Stanford in 1891-92, died in 1964; Eloise Knapp died in 1973.

From the 1940s until last year, church leaders refused to publish Bliss
Knapp's book. After Knapp privately published the book in 1947, church
leaders sent him a letter pointing out what they considered to be the book's
doctrin al flaws and asking him to destroy the book and the printing plates.

In September 1991, church leaders decided to publish the book as part of a
15-volume biographical series on Eddy.

They also signed a document promising to comply with the terms of the
wills. Referring to that agreement Ross wrote, "It is compliance with the
terms of the agreement that is required, not just execution of the
agreement."

"Despite the apparent execution of a piece of paper ostensibly embodying
the terms set forth in the will and trusts," the judge wrote, the church was
required to enter the agreement "in good faith and with the intent to perform
it."

The church's right to "obtain the proceeds of the trusts is conditioned
upon full compliance" with the wills, he wrote.

He said the church has taken the position that it is entitled to the funds
as long as it meets only two conditions: publication of Destiny and delivery
of an agreement containing specified terms.

"The court disagrees," he wrote. "In this case, however, the written
instrument that must control is the entire will(s). . . ." The church may not
"pay attention to one portion. . .and ignore the balance."

Taken in their entirety, the Knapp and Mabury wills are consistent, the
judge said, with instructions given by Bliss Knapp and contained in a
document the judge characterized as "akin to a deposition" from Knapp.

"Bliss Knapp unequivocally evidenced his desire that the trust not
terminate when the trustees signed a contract with the [church] directors for
the publishing of Destiny," Ross wrote.

Instead, Knapp wanted the trusts "to continue until the trustees are
convinced that the directors are carrying out their side of the agreement and
Destiny is actually for sale in the Reading Rooms."

The wills provide that the book be available until after a year passes in
which no one requests a copy.

Ross said the timing of the book's publication raises questions. Noting
that no new publications about Mary Baker Eddy had been issued for years, "is
it only coincidence that Destiny came out as a part of a proposed 15 volumes,
" Ross asked, "or will the initial three-to-four volumes be all that are
published and are these really publications or only a smoke-screen to hide
and obfuscate the dissemination of Destiny?"

Showing exasperation with the mounds of documents submitted and the
practice of attorneys to cram in long footnotes, Ross said that perhaps Alice
[in Wonderland] was correct when she said: "You can make words mean so many
diffe rent things."

Through 26 annual accountings since Mabury's death, the court had
accumulated less than five volumes of files, Ross said, but since about
February 1992 "the court files have expanded at a rate wherein the trees
felled to suppl y the paper probably exceed the rate cut in the Brazilian
rain forests."

The parties will return to Los Angeles Superior Court for a continuation
of the hearing on Jan. 28, 1993. In the meantime, a special judge will hear
remaining "discovery" motions in which the parties try to gather information
f rom each other.

Handling the case for Stanford are university attorneys Carol Swenson and
Michael Vartain and outside counsel from the Los Angeles firm of Munger,
Tolles & Olson.

-kb-

920923Arc2100.html

This is an archived release.

This release is not available in any other form.
Images mentioned in this release are not available online.
Stanford News Service has an extensive library of images,
some of which may be available to you online.
Direct your request by EMail to images@news-service.stanford.edu.